Here are a couple of exchanges from the Journal of Nuclear Physics that give us something of Rossi’s case in regard to the E-Cat customer’s use of the heat from the 1MW plant during the one year test.
Q: When you say that the Customer “used the heat” does this mean that the manufacturing process was endothermic — i.e. the heat delivered by the E-Cat was absorbed in the customer’s production process?
A: Andrea Rossi
August 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM
Q: If the 1MW of thermal power emitted from the ECAT reactors in the plant of the customer was used by the customer and not continually vented away, this seems to imply an endothermic process that trapped heat within the molecular structure of the chemical being produced.
Can you confirm?
A: Andrea Rossi
August 13, 2016 at 7:12 AM
Candice Bee Watson:
So Rossi’s case is that there would not have been the heat signature that many critics of the 1 year E-Cat test — Including Industrial Heat — have been saying should have been present if the plant was actually producing 1 MW of heat over a long period of time.
Rossi is saying that the heat was somehow absorbed in the manufacturing process, since that process was endothermic — and the heat did not need to be disposed of continually. Rossi did say in an earlier comment that there were times (he has not said how frequent) when the plant needed to dump excess heat, presumably when the manufacturing plant was offline for whatever reason, and in those cases, there was a ventilation system used to move the heat up through the roof.
Of course this brings up the question of what kind of endothermic process might be able to absorb the quantities of heat that were transmitted to the customer, and Rossi has provided no details at all about that. I would hope that he would provide evidence to support his claim of this apparently endothermic process in the court case, but I do wonder whether the customer would want to provide too many details if this was a trade secret proprietary process, which Rossi has implied that it is.
UPDATE: (Aug 14, 2016)
Here’s another possibly relevant piece of information with a question from Oystein Lande on the JONP:
August 14, 2016 at 4:40 PM
Dear mr Rossi,
Did the 1MW customer also use water for cooling purposes in his endothermic process ?
August 14, 2016 at 7:23 PM
And here’s another similar question:
August 14, 2016 at 6:37 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I imagine that the JMP plant used the thermal energy for endothermic physical and/or chemical interactions, while the excess heat, if necessary, was removed by means of air and water, am I correct?
Thank you if you can answer,
August 14, 2016 at 7:26 PM